DEFENCE

Afghanistan: Implications for US Uplift

Liam Fox: On Friday 25 June, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) completed the transfer of security responsibility for Kajaki in northern Helmand from UK to US forces and the redeployment of the company of UK soldiers based there to Sangin, where they will reinforce our existing presence.
	The transfer of Kajaki is part of the reorganisation of ISAF forces in Helmand province and across southern Afghanistan which has been made possible by the significant uplift in Afghan and international troops, particularly US troops. As part of this process, security responsibility for Musa Qala in Helmand transferred to US forces on 27 March 2010, the UK-led Task Force Helmand came under command of the US Marine Corps' 1st Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward) on 1 June 2010 and, on the same date, command of the British battle group based in Sangin transferred from Task Force Helmand to the US-led Regimental Combat Team in the north of the province.
	As has been the case with previous changes in Helmand, the UK has been consulted throughout ISAF's decision-making process and we welcome the transfer of Kajaki to US forces as enabling ISAF to further optimise the use of its forces in the province.

Transfer of Detainees (Afghanistan)

Liam Fox: The House will be aware that the Ministry of Defence has been judicially reviewed in the High Court. The claimant in that case, Ms Maya Evans, sought to end the practice of transferring detainees to the appropriate Afghan authorities. The Court's judgment was handed down on Friday 25 June, and I am pleased to say that it found UK practices are lawful.
	Our operations in Afghanistan are conducted to protect the national security of the United Kingdom and its people, at home and abroad. It is vital that we address transnational terrorism at its core if we are to safeguard the British people from its effects. In doing so, the ability of our forces to detain those who represent a threat to them, or to the Afghan population, is a vital tool if we are to learn about the insurgency, protect against the improvised explosive device threat, and finally ensure that those responsible are held properly to account. In seeking justice from those who attack, maim and kill our troops, coalition forces and Afghan civilians it is absolutely right that we do so through the Afghan judicial system.
	There is no place for the abuse of detainees. We must always act in a manner that is consistent with our values. We took this case very seriously. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) and Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) provided a vast range of material to assist the Court in what it described as a massive, costly and time-consuming disclosure exercise. I welcome the Court's recognition of the efforts the MOD went to to provide the Court with a full and clear understanding of all the issues raised.
	In its judgment, the Court acknowledged the body of material, produced by the international institutions, among others, which covered allegations of mistreatment within the general Afghan system. But it also recognised the specific safeguards and monitoring arrangements in place to provide reassurance about the treatment of transferees, safeguards which will be further reinforced in line with the Court's recommendations. This led to the Court's conclusion that the steps we have taken with the Afghan authorities are sufficient to provide reassurance about their treatment and that UK forces can therefore lawfully continue to transfer UK-captured insurgents to sovereign Afghan authorities.
	The British Government, working with international partners under International Security Assistance Force, will also continue to support all efforts to improve further the Afghan judicial system and the rule of law.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Diplomatic Missions/International Organisations (Parking and Traffic Fines)

William Hague: In 2009, there were 4,979 recorded outstanding parking and other minor traffic violation fines incurred by diplomatic missions and international organisations in the United Kingdom. These totalled £534,060. In March this year, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office wrote to all diplomatic missions and international organisations concerned, giving them the opportunity to either pay their outstanding fines or appeal against them if they considered that the fines had been issued incorrectly. As a result of subsequent payments totalling £7,760 there remains a total of £526,300 unpaid fines for 2009. The table below details those diplomatic missions and international organisations that have outstanding fines totalling £1,000 or more.
	
		
			 Diplomatic Mission/InternationalOrganisation Number of Outstanding Fines (excluding congestion charge) Amount in £ 
			 Kazakhstan 1399 £147,880 
			 Afghanistan 303 £34,780 
			 United Arab Emirates 272 £24,440 
			 China 211 £22,760 
			 Cyprus 209 £22,540 
			 Turkey 158 £17,500 
			 Saudi Arabia 159 £17,000 
			 Albania 143 £16,920 
			 Pakistan 128 £14,440 
			 France 118 £12,560 
			 Nigeria 104 £12,460 
			 Sudan 91 £10,400 
			 Romania 95 £10,000 
			 Egypt 87 £9,440 
			 Jordan 73 £8,060 
			 Russia 162 £7,120 
			 Uzbekistan 54 £6,020 
			 Ukraine 43 £4,920 
			 Ghana 45 £4,880 
			 Guinea 47 £4,820 
			 Georgia 43 £4,660 
			 Kuwait 34 £3,960 
			 Libya 36 £3,760 
			 Tunisia 36 £3,720 
			 Liberia 36 £3.520 
			 Malaysia 30 £3,280 
			 Zimbabwe 29 £3,160 
			 Algeria 28 £3,100 
			 Germany 29 £3,020 
			 Bulgaria 25 £2,880 
			 Slovenia 25 £2,880 
			 USA 26 £2,880 
			 Oman 26 £2,820 
			 Greece 24 £2,680 
			 Kenya 23 £2,680 
			 Iraq 22 £2,580 
			 North Korea 22 £2,320 
			 Iran 20 £2,160 
			 Mozambique 19 £2,120 
			 South Africa 21 £2,060 
			 Mongolia 18 £2,000 
			 Yemen 19 £2,000 
			 Cote d'Ivoire 17 £1,920 
			 Qatar 16 £1,880 
			 Syria 16 £1,780 
			 Bangladesh 14 £1,760 
			 Morocco 14 £1,580 
			 Italy 14 £1,540 
			 Mexico 14 £1,520 
			 Vietnam 13 £1,520 
			 Gabon 13 £1,460 
			 Mauritius 13 £1,460 
			 International Maritime Organisation 13 £1,460 
			 Lithuania 12 £1,360 
			 Azerbaijan 12 £1,280 
			 Belgium 12 £1,280 
			 Indonesia 11 £1,280 
			 Ethiopia 12 £1,240 
			 Bahrain 14 £1,220 
			 Benin 12 £1,200 
			 Tanzania 10 £1,140

Serious and Drink Driving Offences (Diplomatic Immunity)

William Hague: In 2009, seventeen serious and drink driving offences allegedly committed by people entitled to diplomatic immunity were drawn to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. "Serious Offences" are defined as offences that would, in certain circumstances, carry a penalty of 12 months or more imprisonment. Some 25,000 people are entitled to diplomatic immunity in the United Kingdom.
	The table below lists those foreign missions whose diplomats allegedly committed serious and drink driving offences and the type of offence from 2005-09.
	
		
			 2005  
			   
			 Actual Bodily Harm  
			 Jordan 1 
			   
			 Assault (Domestic Violence)  
			 Saudi Arabia 1 
			   
			 Dangerous Driving  
			 Turkey 1 
			   
			 Driving under the Influence of Alcohol  
			 Angola 1 
			 Egypt 1 
			 Ghana 1 
			 Lebanon 1 
			 Peru 1 
			 Russia 1 
			 Saudi Arabia 1 
			   
			 Harassment  
			 Turkey 1 
			   
			 Theft (Shoplifting)  
			 Egypt 1 
			 Equatorial Guinea 1 
			 Zambia 1 
			   
			 Theft and Robbery (of Motor Vehicle, Driving without Insurance)  
			 South Africa 1 
			   
			 2006  
			   
			 Attempted Robbery  
			 South Africa 1 
			   
			 Deception (Going Equipped to Commit)  
			 Nigeria 1 
			   
			 Driving under the Influence of Alcohol  
			 Kazakhstan 2 
			 Belarus 1 
			 Côte d'Ivoire 1 
			 Kuwait 1 
			 Malawi 1 
			 Oman 1 
			 Saudi Arabia 1 
			 South Africa 1 
			   
			 Driving without Insurance  
			 Pakistan 1 
			   
			 Failure to Stop for Police/Driving without Insurance and Licence  
			 Kazakhstan 1 
			   
			 Robbery  
			 South Africa 1 
			   
			 Theft (Obtaining Property by Deception  
			 Ghana 1 
			   
			 2007  
			   
			 Dangerous Driving  
			 Russia 1 
			   
			 Domestic Assault/Actual Bodily Harm  
			 South Africa 1 
			   
			 Driving without insurance  
			 Ghana 1 
			   
			 Driving without Insurance and Driving under the Influence of Alcohol  
			 Malawi 2 
			   
			 Driving under the Influence of Alcohol  
			 Belarus 1 
			 Georgia 1 
			 Hungary 1 
			 Israel 1 
			 Italy 1 
			 (*)Other 1 
			 Kazakhstan 1 
			 Kuwait 1 
			 Moldova 1 
			 Nigeria 1 
			 Peru 1 
			 Saudi Arabia 1 
			 Turkmenistan 1 
			   
			 Misrepresentation (Obtaining Insurance by Deception)  
			 Côte d'Ivoire 1 
			   
			 Robbery and Actual Bodily Harm  
			 Guyana 1 
			 2008  
			   
			 Driving under the Influence of Alcohol  
			 Cameroon 1 
			 Kyrgyzstan 1 
			 Morocco 1 
			 Mozambique 1 
			 Other(*) 1 
			 Saudi Arabia 1 
			 Thailand 1 
			 Uganda 1 
			 Vietnam 1 
			   
			 Theft (Shoplifting)  
			 Cameroon 1 
			   
			 2009  
			   
			 Driving under the Influence of Alcohol  
			 Brazil 1 
			 Germany 1 
			 Russia 1 
			 Tanzania 1 
			 USA 1 
			 Vietnam 1 
			 Saudi Arabia 1 
			 Cameroon 1 
			 International Maritime Organisation 1 
			   
			 Driving under the Influence of Alcohol and without Insurance  
			 Bahrain 1 
			   
			 Driving without Due Care and Attention  
			 Ghana 1 
			   
			 Human Trafficking  
			 Saudi Arabia 1 
			 Sierra Leone 1 
			   
			 Sexual Assault  
			 Saudi Arabia 1 
			   
			 Actual Bodily Harm  
			 Nigeria 1 
			   
			 Theft (Shoplifting)  
			 Gambia 1 
			   
			 Threatening to Kill  
			 Pakistan 1 
			   
			 Neglect of a Young Person  
			 Cameroon 1 
			   
			 (*)Details have been withheld because the number of diplomatic personnel in the mission(s) concerned is/are so small that disclosure would lead to the identification of the individual concerned. This would breach the data protection rights of that individual, in particular, the first data protection principle, namely, that personal data should be processed fairly. This is because the offences are only alleged to have been committed and have not been proven in a court of law. In these circumstance, section 40 (2) and (3) of the Freedom of Information Act confer an absolute exemption on disclosure of this information.

Diplomatic Missions (Outstanding National Non-Domestic Rates Bills)

William Hague: The majority of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom pay the national non-domestic rates requested from them. They are obliged to pay only 6% of the total national non-domestic rates value which represents payment for specific services such as street cleaning, lighting, maintenance and fire services. The total amount outstanding from all diplomatic missions is approximately £574,998. As at 1 April 2010, missions listed below owed over £10,000 in respect of NNDR.
	Since a letter about outstanding NNDR bills was sent to missions on 22 February 2010, £26,471.68 has been repaid. Many missions have cleared their bills and some others have entered into arrangements to pay by instalment. Overall, the repayment rate is 96%.
	
		
			 Bangladesh £80,612.37 
			 Bulgaria £13,022.25 
			 Cameroon £58,517.78 
			 Cote d'Ivoire £77,079.12 
			 Equatorial Guinea £15,782.37 
			 Liberia £15,388.02 
			 Sierra Leone £50,790.06 
			 Tanzania £13,572.67 
			 Tunisia £26,525.97 
			 Ukraine £26,103.15 
			 Uzbekistan £10,287.95 
			 Zimbabwe £93,414.78 
			 TOTAL £481,096.49

Diplomatic Missions and International Organisations (Congestion Charge)

William Hague: The number of outstanding fines incurred by the diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom for non-payment of the London congestion charge since its introduction in February 2003 until 29 January 2010 was £36,057,690. The table shows the 57 diplomatic missions and international organisations with outstanding fines totalling £100,000 or more.
	
		
			 Country Number ofFines Total Outstanding (£) 
			 USA 35,602 3,821,880 
			 Russia 29,375 3,204,900 
			 Japan 25,434 2,766,360 
			 Germany 24,358 2,644,810 
			 Nigeria 18,576 1,964,310 
			 Sudan 12,123 1,263,360 
			 India 10,977 1,205,680 
			 Poland 9,446 1,033,020 
			 Ghana 8,981 970,340 
			 Spain 7,860 864,860 
			 France 7,960 861,100 
			 Kenya 8,206 858,630 
			 Greece 7,526 821,460 
			 Ukraine 7,092 775,440 
			 Romania 6,911 757,300 
			 Tanzania 7,203 753,520 
			 South Africa 6,333 659,740 
			 Algeria 5,858 618,340 
			 Kazakhstan 5,373 575,480 
			 Sierra Leone 5,066 523,900 
			 Korea 4,363 488,340 
			 Bulgaria 4,256 459,040 
			 Hungary 3,911 424,000 
			 Yemen 3,768 407,820 
			 Belarus 3,598 391,080 
			 Slovakia 3,563 390,240 
			 Cyprus 3,401 370,600 
			 Zambia 3,355 358,160 
			 Pakistan 3,151 347,930 
			 Cameroon 3,091 329,420 
			 Zimbabwe 3,038 311,600 
			 Ethiopia 2,779 294,060 
			 Czech Republic 2,343 258,240 
			 Mauritius 2,370 254,240 
			 Namibia 2,362 247,240 
			 Equatorial Guinea 2,251 243,480 
			 Cuba 2,230 234,680 
			 Swaziland 2,267 225,400 
			 Austria 2,004 220,160 
			 Mozambique 2,035 215,220 
			 Belgium 1,889 209,480 
			 Lesotho 1,927 203,180 
			 Denmark 1,614 179,600 
			 Botswana 1,623 175,860 
			 Malta 1,518 165,420 
			 Vietnam 1,530 163,520 
			 Malawi 1,568 163,400 
			 Cote d'Ivoire 1,564 161,080 
			 Afghanistan 1,411 158,220 
			 Egypt 1,640 155,200 
			 Uganda 1,396 149,540 
			 Jamaica 1,284 138,800 
			 Liberia 1,249 135,880 
			 Guinea 1,324 135,820 
			 Saudi Arabia 1,327 129,490 
			 DPR Korea 1,119 116,100 
			 Luxembourg 925 101,720

HEALTH

Direct Payments for Health Care

Paul Burstow: The Government have today authorised the piloting of direct payments for health care, under powers in the Health Act 2009.
	This Government want to put patients at the heart of everything the national health service does. Direct payments, and personal health budgets more generally, have great potential to put patients in control, enable integration across health and social care, and improve outcomes.
	We have long supported the idea of personal health budgets, and we continue to support the pilot programme.
	The Department has initially authorised piloting of direct payments in eight primary care trusts (PCTs) within the personal health budget pilot programme. More will be authorised as soon as individual PCTs are ready and have in place suitable systems and safeguards. Approved pilot sites will be able to offer direct payments to people across a range of conditions and services, including continuing health care, a number of long-term conditions, mental health, learning disabilities, and end-of-life care.
	The personal health budget pilot programme involves around seventy PCTs across England. An independent evaluation will provide evidence on how personal budgets work and how to overcome the technical and cultural challenges involved. The evaluation is due to report in autumn 2012.
	The table shows the PCTs initially authorised to offer direct payments.
	
		
			 Lead PCT Conditions or services included in pilot 
			 Doncaster PCT Continuing health care and mental health 
			 Eastern and Coastal Kent PCT Continuing health care, end-of-life care, maternity, and mental health 
			 Central London (joint bid from Hammersmith and Fulham PCT, Kensington and Chelsea PCT and Westminster PCT) Continuing health care, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, diabetes, and mental health 
			 Islington PCT Continuing health care (in limited circumstances, with expansion subject to further approval) 
			 Merseyside (Joint bid from Knowsley PCT, Liverpool PCT and Sefton PCT) Mental health 
			 Oxford PCT Continuing health care and end-of-life care 
			 Somerset PCT Children in transition to adult services, learning disabilities, long-term neurological conditions 
			 West Sussex PCT Carers of people who have recently been diagnosed with dementia, children in transition to adult services, continuing health care

HOME DEPARTMENT

Non-EU Economic Migration Limits

Theresa May: This afternoon I will make an oral statement to the House on the Government's plans to introduce annual limits on economic migrants from outside of the EU from April 2011; and interim measures being taken to prevent a surge in applications during the interim period.

JUSTICE

Judicial Appointments

Kenneth Clarke: I am today announcing my intention to review the operation of the judicial appointments process and the structure of those bodies supporting the Lord Chief Justice and me on judicial matters.
	The appointment element of the review will look at the end to end appointments process addressing in particular:
	The proper balance between executive, judicial and independent responsibilities.
	Ensuring clarity, transparency and openness.
	Quality and speed of service to applicants and the courts and tribunals the process serves.
	Governance, efficiency and value for money.
	The appointments process must fully respect and maintain the independence of the judiciary, and appointment on merit must remain absolutely at the heart of the process. These principles will underpin the review.
	In the light of the needs of the judicial appointments process, the Courts and Tribunals Integration Programme and the Government's wider review of arm's length bodies, the review will also consider whether the current structure of judicial arm's length bodies
	best meets the needs of the constitutional settlement, properly protecting judicial independence;
	provides clear accountability; and
	provides the most effective means of delivering a high quality service and value for money.
	The review has been agreed with and will be conducted in close consultation with the Lord Chief Justice. I expect the review to report in the autumn.

PRIME MINISTER

G8 and G20 Summits

David Cameron: Following the meetings in Canada I am placing the communiqués for the G8 and G20 in the Libraries of both Houses.